From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Mon May 06 2002 - 23:42:52 MDT
YP Fun wrote:
> Hurting your opponent is not the point of an
> arguement convincing or informing your opponent is.
In what way amn I hurting my opponent or not convincing or
informing him if I simply attempt to bring the argument out of
the clouds of theory to the real world to give evidence of why I
believe laws against child-abuse are needful? I was in no wise
attempting to "hurt" my opponent. I was attempting to ground
the conversation in reality.
Before anyone tries insinuating it, I am in no way a "victim"
type person. I am an "invulnerable" type. Having survived some
hellish conditions early on, very little now really floors me.
I am one of the most non-victim people I know. That doesn't
mean I deny my past or refrain from bringing it up when I think
an argument is a bit too theoretical.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:52 MST